In addition to the ones already named I would add James Henry Lane (The one born in Indiana). I believe that he was made a BG, USV in 1861. In 1862, his commission was cancelled, but I believe it was also reinstated.

I can't cite any official statements made by the Confederate Government (So perhaps he doesn't qualify under the criterion given), but I'm certain that he was considered to be an outlaw by them due to the atrocity at Osceola, MO (Which was later used as justification for Quantrill's attack on Lawrence, KS), as well as other actions.

Thanks TD. I'm specifically looking for ones that the Confederate government officially designated as outlaws by name. Its regarding a hunch I have about the idea of "total" war in nineteenth century America.

It does seem, however, that Jefferson Davis is making a conditional condemnation of General Pope and the officers serving under him as felons if they follow through with Pope's threat to shoot civilians.

Here's the irony of loosing the war, folks will call you traitors for being on the loosing side. And what would folks today call people like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Henry "Light-Horse Harry" Lee, Francis Marion, Nathanael Greene, and Horatio Gates had they lost their war? Actually I know there are some British folks who call them traitors too.

How ironic some of our military bases are named for "traitors." Fort Hood. Fort A.P. Hill. Fort Bragg. Fort Gordon. Fort Lee. Just a few instillation named for "traitors."

I read Jeff Davis's proclamation about Hunter with incredulity. This was not the work of a statesman or a legitimate President. Could he not see the obvious, that retaliation that would result? No wonder the south lost!

And Hunter was a criminal for training soldiers - who happened to be black? Please.

Inflammatory?...So long as my views fit yours that’s fine. But a different idea is inflammatory? The entire discussion is silly and based. "Branded as outlaws"? By whom, an illegitimate government?

As for Brown, he believed in his principles as much as southern slave owners did theirs. Why is he is a madman for trying to free slaves while those who enslaved fellow human beings are fine citizens? I am no Brown fan; anymore than I am a fan of the southern hot heads whose ill-advised “secession” eventually killed 750,000.

I suppose that this message is such heresy that it will get me kicked off the forum. But before I go, I will point out that when a plea for funds was sent, I responded with cash to support a man’s fine work. Did YOU?

The south lost the war for many reasons, but they didn't include proclamations made by Jefferson Davis branding Union generals as felons. Nothing ever came of them.

As for General Hunter, he wasn't a criminal for training soldiers. He was a criminal for stealing slaves and trying to impress them into the Union Army. (As the article I posted shows). He took it upon himself to exceed his own authority by issuing his own emancipation proclamation, just as General Fremont had done in the previous year. All of General Fremont's proclamations were voided by Mr. Lincoln. Likewise, General Hunter's actions were repudiated as being illegal. Mr. Lincoln did not say, in effect: "Shame on Jefferson Davis." He said, in effect: "Shame on David Hunter." And unlike what General Hunter chose to believe then and after, Mr. Lincoln did not secretly approve of his actions in 1862.

You are right that this discussion is: "Silly," but we are only having it because YOU, as you have done several times before, have chosen to come on here with another set of incendiary attacks filled with a good deal of emotion, but few if any facts. You might have considered the CSA to be an: "Illegitimate government," but millions thought otherwise. The British would have said the same about the representatives of : "The United States of America" after those men made their Declaration 85 years earlier. But it all depends on who wins the war, doesn't it?

As for John Brown, he would be called a : "Terrorist" today. He didn't simply try to free slaves (Which was a criminal act whether you liked the law or not), but he was a foul murderer who was responsible for stabbing and hacking five men to death in Kansas, among other notorious deeds.

I also believe that he personally shot and mortally wounded a US Marine during his raid on the arsenal at Harper's Ferry. There he was responsible for many other deaths.

One term that you like to throw around on this forum is: "Southern hotheads." Well, I have seen hundreds of people posting on this forum, and I believe that few have exceeded you in the: "Hothead" department.

I have no part in running this forum, and I have no authority to kick anyone off it. (Nor do I want such authority). But if you're going to engage in bomb throwing and screaming about: "Jefferson Davis and the rest of the southern traitors (Exclamation point)," don't be surprised if some here fire back.

Brown didn't just want to free slaves. Read a little Webb Garrison concerning what exactly Brown's plans entailed. I'll give you a hint, the destruction of a nation. In Civil War Schemes and Plots Garrison discusses what John Brown's meeting in Chatham, Canada entailed. He planned to carve a new nation out of the heart of the existing nation by force and bar slavery from that new nation. Now while barring slavery may be admirable to us today, and certainly was admirable to the abolitionists during that day an age, what is admirable about the plan to destroy a nation to carry that plan out? This is not the same as the southern states seceding. despite pointing to Texas vs. White to claim secession was illegal, the fact is that there was absolutely nothing to say otherwise prior to the war. The Texas vs. White decision came after the war in 1869 and it only retroactively made that claim that secession was illegal prior to the war. Brown, an American citizen, was going to take the territory for his intended nation by force by deliberately attacking the US.

You're right about Texas v. White. With the wounds from the war still raw in 1869, there was no way that the justices could tell the American people that secession was actually legal, and that Mr. Lincoln's holy war to preserve the Union had been fought on a wrong legal premise. They could not tell the people that their martyred president, Mr. Lincoln ( Who appointed several of the justices serving on the Court in 1869), had asked them to sacrifice so many lives while taking a position on the Constitution that was incorrect.

The whole idea that the CSA never really existed is an absurdity. The CSA encompassed a large territory with several million inhabitants. Its government might not have operated very efficiently, but it certainly did exist from 1861 to 1865. It did so in spite of having a militarily superior: "Foreign" enemy on its borders from the very beginning. Whether these: "Wayward sisters" in the south could have survived as a nation if they had been allowed to go in peace is a question that can only be speculated on. But the reality that the CSA did exist for four years is beyond doubt.

There was nothing inflammatory in my comments – unless you are clinging to myths.

Traitors. This is what common soldiers called rebels, confederates and secessionists. You may not like it, but they obviously had their reasons for doing so, and I accept their reasons.

Illegitimate Government. After the Civil War the Supreme Court ruled southern states never ceased to be part of the US. No important county recognized the confederacy as a separate and distinct nation.

Hot Heads. The more commonly used term is Firebrand, but the meaning is the same. Southern leaders were too quick to challenge the US to a “duel” and war resulted. Wiser men would have not challenged an opponent with superior firepower.

As for Brown, let me make this clear. While I support his aim to end slavery I do not condone what he did in Kansas or at Harpers Ferry. Not only was it wrong it hastened interest in secession by convincing southerners that northerners were all crazy abolitionists. They were not. Should I assume that your support of southern culture means that you condone what slave-owners did to slaves?

There is a theme that runs though your postings Hellcat and Texas Defender. The thread is that secession was a noble cause, unavoidable and brought on by the North.

Secession was about preservation of a slave culture and economy, an evil purpose if there ever was one. War could have been avoided, had the south tried to wear out the north without starting a war - and 750,000 lives would have been saved. And the south intentionally precipitated the war by firing on Ft Sumter before it could be abandoned by its occupants!

And how come it was ok for the New England states to twice consider secession? Twice they actually voted to do exactly tat and twice it was politics that kept them in the union. Or how about all Southerners and slavery? You say essentially that ALL Southerners were willing to secede to keep slavery. IF your state were today to be deciding to secede because of a federal ruling that was causing major computer and software companies to go overseas, and only about 10% of the population was wealthy because of those companies, would you be agreeable to d so just to make the rich richer? Most folks in the South couldn't afford slaves and most weren't agreeable to the idea of the rich getting richer. But they also weren't agreeable to being told how they could live. It's ironic how the Northern states wanted the South to live by the constitution but when they didn't agree with decisions carried out through the process laid out by the Constitution they then declared them null and void. Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Vermont, Connecticut, Michigan, Maine, and Rhode Island all decided to ignore the Constitution on the issue.

Was secession unavoidable? Unfortunately I have to say yes. The country wasn't a single culture, and it wasn't simply divided into slave and free states. It's more surprising there wasn't more secession than there was. Heck even California, or at least Southern California, was considering seceding at that time. Was secession a noble cause? I've never said one way, that is how you have read it. But ask yourself this, was it a noble cause for the colonies to secede from the British Empire in the 1770? Because that is EXACTLY what they did in the Revolution.

It's also ironic you bring up economy because guess what, the North was benefitting from slavery economically as much if not more than the Southern states.

Also do not presume anyone supports slavery if they choose to defend the South.

I apologize folks, the tone of my posts are a little too argumentative. I prefer a good debate but this is not the thread for this debate. Such threads already exist on these forums.

You are really clueless if you don't think that saying: "Shame on Jefferson Davis and the rest of the southern traitors ! " is an inflammatory comment. It implies that all who served the CSA, military and civilian, and supported its existence, were: "Traitors." I think rather that your continual and purposeful usage of terms like: "Traitors" and: "Treason" signals your intent to be inflammatory.

Just because many northerners of that day equated secession with treason did not make it so. Treason can only be committed against one's own country, and those who formed the CSA considered that they had established their own separate country. They did not seek to destroy the U.S. Government, only to leave it.

You can cling to the 1869 USSC decision from a Court loaded with Lincoln appointees if you wish to. But it had no bearing on the reality that existed in 1861, when it can't be shown that secession broke any existing laws. Other countries that might have recognized the CSA were threatened with war by the Lincoln Adminstration if they did so. While they abstained from that, several granted: "Belligerent" status to the CSA. That traditionally refers to a warring state. Being recognized as a : "Belligerent power" gave the CSA a degree of equality in how it was regarded by foreign states. For example, CSA warships were treated the same as those of the USA when entering foreign ports. In addition, Mr. Lincoln himself gave de facto recognition to the CSA by declaring a naval blockade of its ports, something traditionally done only to an enemy country engaged in a war.

As for: "Hotheads," there were plenty in the north as well as the south, and some were real headaches for Mr. Lincoln. As for: "Code Duello," you have obviously bought into the nonsense posted in this forum by Mr. D. Laurence Rogers. In reality, the CSA wasn't challenging the U.S. Government to some kind of duel. The Confederates would have been more than happy to be left alone, as Jefferson Davis put it in 1861. The Confederates did, however, signal an intention to defend themselves if attacked. But there was never any intention to attack those states that wished to continue to be part of the USA.

Speaking of the USA, I would add that based on your previous posting you don't consider our Founding Fathers to have been: "Wise men," since they took on the greatest military power in the world in their day, Great Britain. It seems that the desire for independence can cause men to be imprudent. In the end, the Confederates did not have the good fortune that the earlier: "Secessionists" enjoyed, as the outcomes were different. But such are the fortunes of war.

As usual, you make false assumptions about my postings. There is nothing in any of my postings on this forum that defends the institution of slavery. I have only said that it was the law of the land, like it or not. I would blame some laws such as the Fugitive Slave Act for strengthening the hand of the abolitionists in the north, and hastening the conflict.

As for secession, I never assigned subjective terms to it as you continually do. I simply said that it was the right of states that voluntarily entered the Union to voluntarily leave it. This position is supported by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, one of the original Bill of Rights without which the Constitution would not have been ratified. Whatever or whoever that brought about secession had no bearing on its legality.

We continue to disagree regarding your contention that the southerners could have : "Worn out" northern opposition to secession by resorting to legal action. You talk about: "Clinging to myths." Well, that is certainly one. Mr. Lincoln said that he would not accept secession in any form, and he wasn't going to change his mind. Peaceful departure by the southerners wasn't ever going to happen.

We agree that general hostilities could have been delayed if Major Anderson had been allowed to abandon Ft. Sumter when his supplies would have run out on 15 April 1861. But that would only have delayed the inevitable until some other spark ignited the situation. I would say that the die was cast before then.

War could have been avoided by either side. The states that had seceded could of course have avoided war if they had agreed to abandon their quest for independence. Of course, it can also be said that war could have been avoided if those in the north had been willing to let the southerners leave peacefully.

Neither of these possibilities was feasible because neither side would back down from its position. War can only take place if both sides are willing to fight. By 1861, enmity built up over many decades had produced just such a situation.

Your blind hatred of the southern culture of that day and all things CSA has resulted in you assigning all of the blame for the war to the southern side. So you continue to spew out bilious comments attacking those that you regard as being the villains of that catastrophic event.

I see no reason for you to apologize for your tone or what has lately appeared on this thread. If the thread has been hijacked, the reason can be found in Mildman's Post #6. Mark's original intention was to complete a list of Union generals that the CSA Government had chosen to denounce as criminals. Mildman diverted that into a defense of General Hunter's illegal actions in 1862 and an attack on Jefferson Davis: "And the rest of the southern traitors !"

As previously stated, General Hunter was not the first Union general to cause problems for Mr. Lincoln by issuing his own: "Emancipation proclamation. " That distinction belongs to General John C. Fremont who on 30 August 1861 declared martial law in Missouri, as well as a partial emancipation of slaves. Mr. Lincoln, his commander-in-chief, was not consulted, and learned of these and other declarations made by General Fremont from the newspapers.

In 1861, the great majority of Union generals were not abolitionists and would have objected if it had been suggested that they were fighting the war to free the slaves. However, there was a radical faction, including Generals Hunter and Fremont, who wished to make the abolition of slavery a war aim of the north.

Mr. Lincoln was presented with the problem of not alienating different elements of his political allies. He certainly didn't wish trouble in the slave holding border states, so he asked General Fremont to modify some of his proclamations. This General Fremont was unwilling to do and Mr. Lincoln's hand was forced. So, he officially voided General Fremont's proclamations, calling them: "Dictatorial." As soon as the dust settled, General Fremont was relieved from his command.

You long-time members know that I'm the furthest thing from a Southern sympathizer there is. We've gotten into it a few times. But I agree the tone and language used by Mildman in this thread is over-the-top. Also somewhat myopic.

Anyway Mildman, while you're welcome to your opinions, you need to phrase them in a more diplomatic way. It sounds too much like you're trying to start a flame war.

OK, Let me formally and sincerely apologize to Hellcat and Texas Defender for my inflammatory remarks. There were not meant to be hostile to you or to southerners in general. However, I can see how they can be taken that way.

Lets get back to the post.

My statement about Jeff Davis should have been more specific to the topic of the post. It was in fact in reaction to the link in Mark's post about J Davis's proclamation. Here’s the text in that link I reacted to.

“Ordered, That Major-General Hunter and Brigadier-General Phelps be no longer held and treated as public enemies of the Confederate States, but as outlaws; and that in the event of the capture of either of them, or that of any other commissioned officer employed in drilling, organizing, or instructing slaves, with a view to their armed service in this war, he shall not be regarded as a prisoner of war, but held in close confinement for execution as a felon at such time and place as the President shall order.”

I do, forgive me, find this order shameful. I see it as evidence of poor leadership - a threat like this only invites retaliation, and inflames partisans like abolitionists. And let me explain, I find it ironic that one who was a leader of treasonous activity (as many northerners considered secession) is calling anyone a criminal. That's the essence of my earlier unfortunate reaction. I hope that I have explained this more carefully – but I fear that even presenting my point this way will be unacceptable.